Moral Conundrum on Abortion

Hi guys,

Wondering if someone might be able to help me out with this moral issue.

Just say completely hypothetically there was a referendum for the country and the proposition was “all abortion, except for cases of rape are illegal”. If the majority votes Yes, then it will make that law go into effect. If the majority votes No, the law will not go into effect and abortion will remain the status quo (which is legal abortion for 9 months of pregnancy). Would you encourage people to vote Yes, No, or would you protest the introduction of this bill?

Those in the pro life battle always support stricter limits on abortion.

In your fictional bill, I would work to define rape so that there must be a police report/charges filed in order to prevent it from becoming a huge loophole.

Assuming you could limit the definition of rape so as to make it rarely usable, would you support the passing of this legislation?

I’ve thought about this before. Would I approve legislation that would be desiged to stop socio-economic abortions while protecting abortion for reasons of rape or incest?

It’s a tough question. On one had you want to accept it, because this will stop the vast majority of abortions. On the other hand you want to say no, because you feel this isn’t something that should be compromised.

I would be inclined to accept the bill as a partial victory, but continue to protest abortions in any case. It almost seems like we would be conceeding to the other side though and might make it even harder to get a full ban.

I think it would be difficult to be against as this would stop over 90% of all abortions. Which would be so much better than where we are now.

Absolutely, such a restrictive bill should be supported. From John Paul II’s encyclical 73Evangelium Vitae:

A particular problem of conscience can arise in cases where a legislative vote would be decisive for the passage of a more restrictive law, aimed at limiting the number of authorized abortions, in place of a more permissive law already passed or ready to be voted on. Such cases are not infrequent. It is a fact that while in some parts of the world there continue to be campaigns to introduce laws favouring abortion, often supported by powerful international organizations, in other nations-particularly those which have already experienced the bitter fruits of such permissive legislation-there are growing signs of a rethinking in this matter. In a case like the one just mentioned, when it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality. This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects.

A Catholic would be allowed to vote for this since it severly limits an intinsic evil. There are only about 4,000 abortion a year that are due to rape or incest.

If the situation were reversed-say all abortion was illegal and a bill was introduced to allow it for abortions in case of rape a catholic could NOT support it.

Whether you are working to reduce abortion in small steps or big steps is secondary to the fact you are working to reduce abortion.

Imagine a country in which school-age children were regularly killed, if their parents felt like it. The country proposes a law that school-age children should be protected, except in certain rare cases.

You would, I assume, support such a change, even though it did not go far enough. Why? *Because you would be saving lives. *There’s no moral conundrum, when a morally permissible course of action directly saves people’s lives.

The same goes for abortion compromises.

What you are contemplating is the classic incrementalism vs. absolutist problem. There are those in the pro-life community who are absolutists and would say that legislation that limits but does not outlaw abortion is flawed and not to be supported. Incrementalists will vote for most laws that limit abortion in any way even if they stop short of outlawing the practice. The pro life movement needs both mindsets as they are complementary. The absolutist provides the drive and the zeal to see an end to abortion no matter the sacrifice, and the incrementalist works within the system to keep chipping away at the problem maintaining a certain momentum. Those who criticize either mindset, not that anyone here has :D, are short sighted.

This would be outrageous for the people who were conceived through sexual assault.

Information is available about women who conceive through rape. The Elliott Institute has done a survey of nearly 200 women on the subject (Victims and Victors) and found that 80% of those who had an abortion regretted it while none of those who had their baby wish they had had an abortion.

And personally, I don’t discriminate people based on the circumstances of their conception. Do you?

I’m sorry to contradict but accoding to Planned Parenthood, rape=1% and incest=0.5%
of the reasons why women are having abortions in the US.

Truly, abortion for any reason is horrific.

I’ve read arguments that to restrict the vast majority of abortions is to “consent” to the evil act of allowing abortion for cases of rape, and is therefore not permissible. This doesn’t hold water to me, when the only alternative is to “consent” to not only the special cases but to all the rest, also.

Not a chance - there is nothing in there discussing a mother’s life being at risk. Also with the rape or incest, someone might try to say there had to be a police report, etc - the vast majority of rapes go unmentioned - because of embararasment and because they don’t want their names in the paper/backlast. This isn’t fair to the woman who has been raped. If she doesn’t feel she can handle all of the commotion that comes with going to the police about a rape she shouldn’t have to. It’s her choice.
God Bless

Someone mentioned the Elliot Institute - This is the Post Abortive Review - show me a study that has no bias and then I will consider the results. I’m sorry, but I believe that the pro choice and pro life as well as pro contraception anti contraception groups both occaisionally pad their results. For one instance this whole situation with birth control and abortions being linked to breast cancer - the study that seems to be most quoted is the one that had 12 participants - this is no where near a proper group for that kind of study - otherwise, I have seen absolutely NO proof regarding this. I understand why each side does it but if you have another study about women who were raped and had the child or aborted let me know. I may sound jaded but there have been way too many times I’ve heard statements on here on EWTN by Barbara what’s her name with Voice of Virtue and on the other hand of course planned parenthood who have spouted off “studies” and then found that they were done by institutes that deffinately had a bias or did something foolish like use a base group of 12 people. I wish that studies could be done without bias but then I guess if most of the results wouldn’t be known neither party would volunteer to sponsor the studies.
Sorry if this sounds harsh but check it out I’m not making this stuff up
God Bless

The truth of the matter is that it doesnt matter whether the statistics are true or not. Ifaniticde is always wrong-whether the child be 5 minutes old and still in the womb or 5 days old and in their Mothers arms.

A crisis pregnancy is a horrible situation for one to be in but fortunately God did not leave us alone in figuring out how to deal with horrible situations. He gave us his Church to guide us not only in good times but more impotantly in time when emotions may lead to commit grevious sins.

You are trying to rationlaize rejecting the teachings of the Church based on:

A tragedy in your life
Your “feelings” about what is fair and what it not
Your “opinion” of some of those holding a position contrary to yours

Your rationalization of rejecting the Church teaching on the intrinisc evil of abortion not only emperils you-it emperils all those who come into contact with when you express your rationalization of rejecting the Church. The problem is that not only are you misleading fellow Catholics on abortion but your are underminding ALL of the teachings of the Church.A Catholic Friend of yours who hears you tell them they can reject Church teaching on abortion could thinks to themselves-“that makes sense. and Since the Church is wrong on this how do I knoiw they are not wrong on the Ressurection of Jesu In fact why should I trust anything the Church says” Would you not have to agree with them if they expressed that you?

Thank you guys. The reason I brought this up in the first place is because there is an american group that has a zero-tolerance position on abortion, which is fine. but they went so far as to say people who supported the passing the partial birth abortion legislation were NOT pro-life because there are other ways to kill a child without partial birth abortion. Anyway, a discussion of this group came up and I said that people like fr. frank pavone who supported this are definitely pro-life. After I said this, a lady who is very active and involved in the pro-life movement lambasted me and sarcastically said I’m ok with babies being slaughtered one way but not another. Then she accused me of not having common sense. Later, I asked the same question as I asked you above. She said we should vote no on that legislation because we are then consenting to the killing of babies in certain cases. She actually even quoted Evangelium Vitae. And then she said we can’t do evil so good can come of it. But this is a very different case.

I was very put off by her attack on me, and I wanted to see what other pro-life people thought. Obviously it seems most people here would support incremental improvement rather than an all or nothing proposition. To me, when you go for all or nothing, you are making this some sort of negotiation, like a car sale. It then becomes a sort of ideological arm wrestle rather than seeking to improve the law one step at a time. Anyway, just to respond to the assertion that this is doing evil so that good may come of it, I would say that’s false. Here we are asked to choose. Either unlimited abortion, or restricted abortion. There is no option here for no abortion. In moral theology, if you are given ONLY 2 options, one being a lesser evil and one being a greater evil, we must pick the lesser evil.

In addition to what you’ve said, it’s worth realizing that the abortion laws are about permissibility, not obligation. If the law *mandated *that a particular fetus be killed, but outlawed every single other instance of abortion, then a Catholic could not vote for it. But those laws which permit evil may be supported, if there is no other option.

Ironically, the all or nothing approach was taken by the Supreme Court, which started all of this nonsense. Their finding that the fetus’ rights were not guaranteed by the Constitution was legalistic, but perhaps defensible. But their finding that citizens had a constitutionally guaranteed right to privacy, which precluded the States’ authority to legislate, was completely bizarre.

Versus 4000 A DAY!!:eek:
I’d vote yes for sure. That means that 1 456 000 (4000 x 364) babies would be saved. I cannot say no!

You have been fed lies and you’ve accepted them!! There’s no such thing as abortion for the mother’s health. Only Eisenmeiger syndrome and Marfan syndrome (certain types) actually pose a legitimate threat of death. (still under 50%) (these are congenital heart problems that make CHILDBIRTH dangerous). Abortion and its risks (breast cancer, sterility, thyroid problems, ptsd, leftover baby parts… a 50% complication rate) is ALWAYS MORE DANGEROUS than a preemie c-section. And not to mention nobody’s killed.

Praying that you see the truth, that abortion in any circumstance is a disgusting moral evil. Every one of the 4000 children daily (only in America!) mutilated alive, torn limb from limb, thrown down the disposal, or into a garbage bag full of bodies deserves to live. You denying their humanity based on two heart conditions, or based on some bull mental health problem, is revolting.

Some info on the heart diseases

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit